Comments

Now, you can tell me that, "Proview shoulda know'd better", or that such "deception" is commonplace and predictable, or that China cheats all the time in various ways...

Really, you amateur lawyers aren't much better than the real ones.

I'm less concerned with what is illegal than with what is dishonest. And Apple was clearly dishonest here.

Its unfortunate that "legal and illegal" so often don't coincide with "honest and dishonest", or with "right and wrong". I suppose we can thank lawyers for exploiting that fully, but that doesn't mean its something to be proud of.

Now, you can tell me that, "Proview shoulda know'd better", or that such "deception" is commonplace and predictable, or that China cheats all the time in various ways...

Really, you amateur lawyers aren't much better than the real ones.

I'm less concerned with what is illegal than with what is dishonest. And Apple was clearly dishonest here.

Its unfortunate that "legal and illegal" so often don't coincide with "honest and dishonest", or with "right and wrong". I suppose we can thank lawyers for exploiting that fully, but that doesn't mean its something to be proud of.

What lie did Apple tell? If you're going to accuse Apple of lying, you'd better be able to point to a specific lie - unless you want to deal with libel charges.

IPAD (the company) reached an agreement to pay $55 K to Proview for the rights to the name 'iPad' in 10 countries. They did so. Then they later sold the trademark to Apple. No lies at all.

If anyone's lying, it would be Proview. Read the Hong Kong decision where it is clear that Yang was operating in bad faith and with intent to defraud Apple.

Now, you can tell me that, "Proview shoulda know'd better", or that such "deception" is commonplace and predictable, or that China cheats all the time in various ways...

Really, you amateur lawyers aren't much better than the real ones.

I'm less concerned with what is illegal than with what is dishonest. And Apple was clearly dishonest here.

Its unfortunate that "legal and illegal" so often don't coincide with "honest and dishonest", or with "right and wrong". I suppose we can thank lawyers for exploiting that fully, but that doesn't mean its something to be proud of.

You think it's "honest" for provide to demand $2 billion now? Do you feel that apple has made 2 billion on the iPad because people thought they were buying a privies product? Or that provide lost $2 billion from sales of their defunct product because apple was selling the iPad?

Why is it "honest" for proview to ask for 400x more money from apple for use of the name iPad than another company? I don't see how you're using ethics to defend proviews position here.

In the 1960's Disney bought 20,000 acres of land in Florida (through a differently-named business entity) that became Disneyworld. They used a different business entity to prevent land owners from jacking up the price if they knew it was Disney doing the buying. This was perfectly legal.

As a long-term fanboy, I usually side with apple, but on this one, they overstepped the line. While what Apple did to procure the name may be correct, it ain't right. The right thing?in my view, for what it's worth, because Apple needed to maintain secrecy before the product was launched?they should now offer Proview a few million, because the cost of the defending the lawsuit in multiple fora will easily cost that. Everybody walks away happy and Apple won't look like a bully?for the moment.

The only value came after Apple used the name. Before that it was worth what?? $55,000.

As a long-term fanboy, I usually side with apple, but on this one, they overstepped the line. While what Apple did to procure the name may be correct, it ain't right. The right thing?in my view, for what it's worth, because Apple needed to maintain secrecy before the product was launched?they should now offer Proview a few million, because the cost of the defending the lawsuit in multiple fora will easily cost that. Everybody walks away happy and Apple won't look like a bully?for the moment.

I completely agree with you . . . if Proview and Apple are a couple of 5 year olds in kindergarten. But they are both multinational corporations and so pre-school norms of conduct don't apply here.

If anyone's lying, it would be Proview. Read the Hong Kong decision where it is clear that Yang was operating in bad faith and with intent to defraud Apple.

You don't know it was fraud. It could have been a mistake.

It amounts to the same thing as far as the expected outcome, but the distinction is real neverthless.

Apple is in big trouble because they did not buy the Chinese trademark from the company who owned it. They should have confirmed ownership with the public trademark registry in each country. For whatever reason, Apple bought the Chinese trademark from a company that did not own it.

Fraud or mistake - it amounts to the same thing: Apple did not buy the Chinese trademark from the owner of the Chinese trademark.

Really? Yang just accidentally did a lengthy negotiation and signed papers transferring the trademark and he didn't know that the bank had told him not to do that?

You really need to read the Hong Kong decision. Yang's behavior was reprehensible and it's amazing that even an inveterate Apple hater like you would pretend that it was accidental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz

It amounts to the same thing as far as the expected outcome, but the distinction is real neverthless.

Apple is in big trouble because they did not buy the Chinese trademark from the company who owned it. They should have confirmed ownership with the public trademark registry in each country. For whatever reason, Apple bought the Chinese trademark from a company that did not own it.

Fraud or mistake - it amounts to the same thing: Apple did not buy the Chinese trademark from the owner of the Chinese trademark.

That hasn't been determined. The Hong Kong court ruled that Apple DID buy the trademark. AFAIK, there are no other court decisions on that particular issue.

According to the original article, there is a complaint that Apple's special purpos entity told Proview via email that they would not be competing with Proview.

I'm not saying the iPad competes with the now-defunct IPAD, but I believe that's an important detail.

Indeed. Given that they don't have to give any reason at all, Apple would have been really foolish to maintain that the IP they were after was for anything specific despite the name of the company doing the buying.

It will come down to whether it's actually true or not whether Apple misrepresented their intentions, but it's important to remember that we only have Proview's word for the fact that this misrepresentation happened and they have been caught lying a few times already.

Ownership of the Chinese trademark was not even in contention in Hong Kong. Look at Paragraph 1 which explains what apple asked for. Look at the appendix which clearly sets forth what the court granted.

Or, as an easier task, find a third-party analysis which states that the Hong Kong court ruled that Apple bought the Chinese trademark. None exist.

As a long-term fanboy, I usually side with apple, but on this one, they overstepped the line. While what Apple did to procure the name may be correct, it ain't right. The right thing?in my view, for what it's worth, because Apple needed to maintain secrecy before the product was launched?they should now offer Proview a few million, because the cost of the defending the lawsuit in multiple fora will easily cost that. Everybody walks away happy and Apple won't look like a bully?for the moment.

I disagree. At the time Apple had not launched the iPad and it was not proven it will be a hit. Also at the time Proview no longer use the I.P.A.D trademark and because the IPAD was not even a PC, it probably was DOA. $50,000 was just for the trademark name, not domain name, and nothing else. It was a fair price for just the name. I'm sure Proview could probably get more, but trying to extort money from Apple says a lot about the real character and the desperate situation for a failed business in China.

Ownership of the Chinese trademark was not even in contention in Hong Kong. Look at Paragraph 1 which explains what apple asked for. Look at the appendix which clearly sets forth what the court granted.

Or, as an easier task, find a third-party analysis which states that the Hong Kong court ruled that Apple bought the Chinese trademark. None exist.

The Wall Street Journal uncovered a "not previously reported" court decision from the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region last July that upheld Apple's claim to the iPad trademark in mainland China.

"The court said Proview had breached an earlier agreement to transfer the iPad name to Apple," the report noted.

Court documents stated that Proview had elected not to transfer the mark after the deal was made and instead asked Apple to pay $10 million for it. The ruling determined that Proview, its subsidiaries and another company had conspired against Apple by breaching the government. The company was found to have "attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity," according to the documents.

"It is accordingly important that (Apple) is able to secure and obtain the China trademarks," the decision read.

Now, one can certainly argue that until all the appeals are done that nothing is binding, but your attempts to rewrite history to support your "Apple is always wrong" view just don't fly. The Hong Kong court was very clear.

Now, one can certainly argue that until all the appeals are done that nothing is binding, but your attempts to rewrite history to support your "Apple is always wrong" view just don't fly. The Hong Kong court was very clear.

From the same article you quote:

Quote:

"It is accordingly important that (Apple) is able to secure and obtain the China trademarks," the decision read.

Your position is that Apple has already secured and obtained the the China trademark. The court said that such an event has not happened, but SHOULD happen.

The court did NOT say "It is accordingly important that Apple has already secured and obtained [past tense] the China trademarks."

They speak about what should happen. That is why they preserved the status quo with injunctions until such time as the underlying issue is fully and fairly tried.

Quote:

Court documents stated that Proview had elected not to transfer the mark ... The ruling determined that Proview, its subsidiaries and another company had conspired against Apple by breaching the government.

Pretty clear. Proview breached. Proview did not transfer the Chinese trademark, despite their prior agreement to do so.

It may not be a known technique with intellectual property, but it's well-known for real property. Disney used it a lot in the late 50's and early 60's to buy land in Central Florida. Being an allegedly educated person, it would help to be aware of this.

I recall Disney trying to employ that same tactic to by up land in farther North on the East Coast for a new park but researchers discovered that it was Disney pulling the strings which pushed the land values up making it not worth Disney's effort to buy.

As a long-term fanboy, I usually side with apple, but on this one, they overstepped the line. While what Apple did to procure the name may be correct, it ain't right. The right thing–in my view, for what it's worth, because Apple needed to maintain secrecy before the product was launched–they should now offer Proview a few million, because the cost of the defending the lawsuit in multiple fora will easily cost that. Everybody walks away happy and Apple won't look like a bully…for the moment.

So it's not right that Apple followed the law but it's right for Proview to have seller's remorse and want to extort more money from Apple? You also think it's right that Apple should roll over regardless of how this could affect how others do business with Apple?